"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.Through the qualities of meditating in that way,Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

Vidyaraja wrote:Again, there is a difference between a soldier and warrior. As the example I pointed to, most Edo era samurai simply were not engaged in warfare or much violence beyond personal duels, and yet they were warriors. As for calling it romantic claptrap, I wouldn't go so far as to say that's all it is. If we consider history it seems that there have been many warrior cultures where what you dismiss as romantic claptrap was taken very seriously by them.

Lot's of really retarded things have been taken seriously by lot's of people over the course of history, that's why samsara is what it is.

take the Bhagavad Gita and Krishna's advice to Arjuna.

"Kill your relatives in order to gain political power and don't worry about it coz God is on your side" is what Krishna basically said to Arjuna. If you read the Old Testament you will see pretty much the same thing. The Koran too.

As to changing shitty diapers or taking care of people in hospice, that will certainly humble a man and allow one to integrate death into their life, but I don't think its quite the same as the steel I am talking about.

So it is a surrogate penis thing we are talking about then?

Well we will have to agree to disagree. If it is true, as Mahayana doctrines often have it, that we have inherent Buddha-nature and it is only a matter of realizing it, then I don't think it is impossible for a warrior to grasp it or that following set rules alone will have you reach it. The Zen tradition is replete with stories of masters slapping their students or slamming a door into them so hard that it breaks their arm and they achieve enlightenment in a flash. Who is to say that the intensity of battle or selfless heroic deeds can't be a catharsis to that awakening? Who is to say a man like Uesugi Kenshin or the Sohei in Japanese tradition or other spiritual warriors are farther away from enlightenment than a non-spiritual/atheistic modern who is a pacifist or even another Buddhist whose intensity of sadhana is less than the warriors?

How many times exactly have you watched Excalibur, Conan the Barbarian and/or Shogun Assasin? I prefer Akira Kurosawa films myself!

Most of the non-warriors of peacetime Japan were considered pretty much useless dandies by some people who had "been there done that", including other prominent duelists. You can even read The Book of Five Rings and see Miyamoto Musashi rail about people do are doing martial arts as aesthetics. Certainly he and others did not consider those people warriors, mainly aristocrats who dabbled in martial arts, and failed to grasp either the inner or outer substance of them.

I think when you try to find the spirit of the noble warrior, you find nothing..on the one hand people who are doing a job that might arguably be needed, often with the best of intentions, but is always moving one downstream from a Buddhist perspective. Throughout history people have used the idea of the warrior, and used warriors themselves for all kinds of deplorable stuff. It's true that there are times when being one might be necessary, but when push comes to shove all the ideals people say they fight for seem to take a big back seat to perpetuating war itself and it's beneficiaries, that's Samsara I guess.

It makes sense to me that Bodhitcitta can exist in any environment, but eventually if someone really develops it, I would think it will steer them away from being a "warrior" of the kind that are named by history.

May the eyes of living beings be gladdened by skies made splendid by clouds that lightnings garland, while on earth below, the peacocks dance with joy as showers of rain, falling gently, approach.

gregkavarnos wrote:Lot's of really retarded things have been taken seriously by lot's of people over the course of history, that's why samsara is what it is.

I don't find fighting or dying honorably and selflessly for a good cause to be retarded, but to each his own. And for me personally becoming a Buddhist won't be able to alter the admiration I have for the martial spirit; personal anecdote but I've always found the three archetypes of man I've admired most were 1) The sage/monk/holy man 2) the great warrior/conqueror and 3) the great artist, particularly the great musician. Perhaps my admiration isn't unfounded considering in all traditional societies the two highest castes were the spiritual caste and the warrior-aristocracy.

Seen Excalibur once, didn't care for it and I've never seen the other two. Akira Kurosawa is my favorite director of all time so I'm right there with you on that one. Also I noticed you posted something in another thread (I think it was you) about the Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie--another favorite of mine.

But here's another question, a hypothetical scenario:

The globe, for some reason or another (lets say Marxist-atheist radicals), decides to declare war on Buddhism, intent on eradicating it from Earth. The Buddhists, if they fight back, can defend the Dharma and preserve it into the future. If they don't, it will certainly be destroyed and all knowledge of it ever existing erased. What would you (directed at everyone) do? You honestly think fighting and dying heroically for such a cause would be negative? Would not a Buddhist warrior caste be a positive force in such a situation?

Vidyaraja wrote:But here's another question, a hypothetical scenario: The globe, for some reason or another (lets say Marxist-atheist radicals), decides to declare war on Buddhism, intent on eradicating it from Earth. The Buddhists, if they fight back, can defend the Dharma and preserve it into the future. If they don't, it will certainly be destroyed and all knowledge of it ever existing erased.

This is going to happen whether you fight against it or not. So your questionable scenario is irrelevant.

You honestly think fighting and dying heroically for such a cause would be negative?

Dying heroically? I guess you did not read the Sutta I posted a couple of pages back? Let me ask you a question, since the thread is about Buddhism and the Warrior: Would dying heroically be a cause for enlightenment? Is it talked about anywhere as a cause of enlightenment? Is it listed anywhere as a wholesome activity that gives rise to the causes/conditions for enlightenment? Did the Buddha, or any of the Buddhas, or any commentator, ever state that dying heroically is conducive to enlightenment? I personally would choose to live heroically, using this life to work towards or achieve enlightenment, rather than throw it away as a hero (ie in pursuit of the worldly dharmas of fame, praise or gain)

Would not a Buddhist warrior caste be a positive force in such a situation?

Positive for whom or what? You do realise that in order for Maitreya (the 5th Buddha of the 1002 that will appear in this world system) to appear the dispensation of the current Buddha of this world system, Gautama Shakyamuni, has to disappear completely? I guess one Buddhas loss is another Buddhas gain!

PS You've never seen Conan the Barbarian??? Arnold Schwarzeneger at his finest! And you haven't seen Sogun Assassin??? Damn you are missing out on some mighty fine hero films!PPS If you want real examples of how this whole "righteous Buddhist warrior" thing can go REALLY wrong then I suggest you do some reading on Maitreya cult rebellions/uprisings.

gregkavarnos wrote:Let me ask you a question, since the thread is about Buddhism and the Warrior: Would dying heroically be a cause for enlightenment? Is it talked about anywhere as a cause of enlightenment? Is it listed anywhere as a wholesome activity that gives rise to the causes/conditions for enlightenment? Did the Buddha, or any of the Buddhas, or any commentator, ever state that dying heroically is conducive to enlightenment?

Well while I am attracted to Buddhism the most of the world's sacred traditions, I am also a Traditionalist/Perennialist, so for me the ample evidence of the attainment of a transcendent realization/enlightenment through warfare, selfless heroic action, and death from other sacred traditions such as Indo-European paganism (Norse, Celtic, Roman, Greek, Iranian, Vedic), from the Hindu tradition, Islam, medieval Christianity, Aztec/Native American traditions, and the Buddhist tradition among the Japanese warrior tradition to name a few, is enough for me to believe that is the case. I think Buddhism is a means to an end but not the only means to that end, and therefore not absolute to the formation of my opinions on every facet of existence, and in this case the nature and possibilities of the spiritual warrior. I think ideally ahimsa should be applied wherever possible, especially in every day life, but for me the exception would be made for a "true" or ideal warrior tradition.

gregkavarnos wrote:Let me ask you a question, since the thread is about Buddhism and the Warrior: Would dying heroically be a cause for enlightenment? Is it talked about anywhere as a cause of enlightenment? Is it listed anywhere as a wholesome activity that gives rise to the causes/conditions for enlightenment? Did the Buddha, or any of the Buddhas, or any commentator, ever state that dying heroically is conducive to enlightenment?

Well while I am attracted to Buddhism the most of the world's sacred traditions, I am also a Traditionalist/Perennialist, so for me the ample evidence of the attainment of a transcendent realization/enlightenment through warfare, selfless heroic action, and death from other sacred traditions such as Indo-European paganism (Norse, Celtic, Roman, Greek, Iranian, Vedic), from the Hindu tradition, Islam, medieval Christianity, Aztec/Native American traditions, and the Buddhist tradition among the Japanese warrior tradition to name a few, is enough for me to believe that is the case. I think Buddhism is a means to an end but not the only means to that end, and therefore not absolute to the formation of my opinions on every facet of existence, and in this case the nature and possibilities of the spiritual warrior. I think ideally ahimsa should be applied wherever possible, especially in every day life, but for me the exception would be made for a "true" or ideal warrior tradition.

I'm really appreciating the incredible training in character, competency, teamwork and, yes, bravery right now. I pray that someday there will be a Department of Peace in my country that will foster the opposite of the us-and-them mentality that is inculcated today... and teach skills of non-violent conflict resolution and have a value on the whole planet, and everyone on it, thriving.

Vidyaraja wrote: I think ideally ahimsa should be applied wherever possible, especially in every day life, but for me the exception would be made for a "true" or ideal warrior tradition.

You might think twice if your balls got blown off along with a limb or two plus permanent brain damage from a tour in Afghanistan.

Yeah war is dangerous but then so is life in general, and in any case that is besides the point and doesn't negate what I am talking about. Aside from that, I am not really talking about modern warfare. To quote a piece by the thinker previously mentioned by Johnny Dangerous, this is what Julius Evola had to say in regards to modern warfare with which I agree:

Moreover, those who love to contrast the past with our recent times should consider what modern civilization has brought us to in terms of war. A change in level has occurred; from the warrior who fights for the honor and for the right of his lord, society has shifted to the type of mere "soldier" that is found in association with the removal of all transcendent or even religious elements in the idea of fighting.

To fight on "the path of God" has been characterized as "medieval" fanaticism; conversely, it has been characterized as a most sacred cause to fight for "patriotic" and "nationalistic" ideals and for other myths that in our contemporary era have eventually been unmasked and shown to be the instruments of irrational, materialistic, and destructive forces. It has gradually become possible to see that when "country" was mentioned, this rallying cry often concealed the plans of annexation and oppression and the interest of monopolistic industries; all talk of "heroism" was done by those who accompanied soldiers to the train stations. Soldiers went to the front to experience war as something else, namely, as a crisis that all too often did not turn out to be an authentic and heroic transfiguration of the personality, but rather the regression of the individual to a plane of savage instincts, "reflexes," and reactions that retain very little of the human by virtue of being below and not above humanity.

From an external point of view, not only is the idea of "holy war" considered "outdated," but also the understanding of it that people of honor had developed; the heroic ideal has now been lowered to the figure of the policeman because the new "crusades" have not been able to find a better flag to rally around than that of the "struggle against the aggressor." From an inner point of view, beyond all this rhetoric, what proved to be decisive was the brute, cynical will to power of obscure, international, capitalist, and collectivist powers. At the same time "science" has promoted an extreme mechanization and technologization of war, so much so that today war is not a matter of man against man but of machines against man. Rational systems of mass extermination are being employed (through indiscriminate air raids, atomic weapons, and chemical warfare) that leave no hope and no way out; such systems could once have been devised only to exterminate germs and insects. In contrast to "medieval superstitions" that refer to a "holy way," what our contemporaries consider sacred and worthy of the actual "progress of civilization" is the fact that millions of human beings, taken away en masse from their occupations and vocations (which are totally alien to the military vocation), and literally turned into what military jargon refers to as "cannon fodder," will die in such events.

So in regards to modern warfare I am in agreement with an anti-war mentality, and modern warfare has nothing to do with the warrior traditions I've been speaking of. However, since this is a Buddhist forum and likely everyone here will disagree with these ideas, there is no real need for me to continue to defend them as it will merely be a one-sided debate and an exercise in futility.

Vidyaraja wrote:Yeah war is dangerous but then so is life in general, and in any case that is besides the point and doesn't negate what I am talking about. Aside from that, I am not really talking about modern warfare. To quote a piece by the thinker previously mentioned by Johnny Dangerous, this is what Julius Evola had to say in regards to modern warfare with which I agree:

War is always about money and power. In the 19th century Japanese authors came up with the fantasy myth about noble samurai as part of their formulation of nationalist ideology. It worked wonders and plenty of westerners bought it as well. The English did the same thing with chivalry and the noble ideals that apparently existed amongst knights way back when.

Huseng wrote:War is always about money and power. In the 19th century Japanese authors came up with the fantasy myth about noble samurai as part of their formulation of nationalist ideology. It worked wonders and plenty of westerners bought it as well. The English did the same thing with chivalry and the noble ideals that apparently existed amongst knights way back when.

Premodern warfare was just as much about money and power.

Power always plays a role in human conflict, but that is about what (usually) motivates a conflict itself not the motivation of the individual warrior in fighting. Again, a prime example of this historically is the ancient Germanic culture and the concept of Valhalla. Anyone who studies this comes to see that for them war itself was a ritual and while there were external goals such as power to be realized through battle, for the individual warrior it was for a sacred and transfiguring purpose. The same could be said of the crusades, both for the crusaders and the Islamic warriors.

Modern historiography which simplistically reduces all battle to mere financial or material aims also contains an inherent bias because moderns don't see the world in the same way ancient man did, so often these modern views attempt to take past conflicts and rationalize them to fit their materialistic world-view and thereby distort them. Just a casual reading of ancient literature, like the Homeric epics to name one example, shows this view to be false.

Vidyaraja wrote: I think ideally ahimsa should be applied wherever possible, especially in every day life, but for me the exception would be made for a "true" or ideal warrior tradition.

Evil rulers are like the bad teacher that Anguilimala had: they lead people astray into death and destruction. We don't have to search far but we might have some difficulty recognizing the evil of our respective societies.

From 1933-1945 Hitler and the Nazi's (and there were various kinds of Nazi's BTW) tried to transform German society into exactly this kind of warrior society. The Japanese did the same from the Meji Restoration through Japanese militarism until 1945. The US has justified the same on the basis of WW II and the perceived need to be the world's policeman after 1945 (I am from a military family BTW and was a soldier myself).

The other side of the coin is that the world really is a violent place and there are no Buddhist states without effective militaries (Bhutan being the sole exception and that is a fluke).

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

So far most people on this thread have treated a warrior as a modern day soldier, a boxer probably has a similar type of mindset & one who comes to mind as extremely religious & generous to the poor, although not buddhist is Manny Pacquiao. Whether a man like this could become enlightened or not I don't know, I do believe it would be possible for him but only once he retires from the ring. He's made life a lot more bearable for some of the kids around Malabon, Manilla, Philippines which was the 2nd worst slum in Manilla not too long ago. Anyone that's watched his famous fights against Marquez wouldn't doubt his warrior instinct. I apologise to everyone especially the original poster if I have gotten too far off topic.

shaunc wrote:So far most people on this thread have treated a warrior as a modern day soldier, a boxer probably has a similar type of mindset & one who comes to mind as extremely religious & generous to the poor, although not buddhist is Manny Pacquiao. Whether a man like this could become enlightened or not I don't know, I do believe it would be possible for him but only once he retires from the ring.

Vidyaraja wrote:Modern historiography which simplistically reduces all battle to mere financial or material aims also contains an inherent bias because moderns don't see the world in the same way ancient man did, so often these modern views attempt to take past conflicts and rationalize them to fit their materialistic world-view and thereby distort them. Just a casual reading of ancient literature, like the Homeric epics to name one example, shows this view to be false.

To understand war it is perhaps wise to read the experts like Carl von Clausewitz. He said, "War is the continuation of Politik by other means."

This is not specifically a materialistic world-view, but rather based on his own observations and experience.

War is effectively an extension of political processes. It is a tool used to force change, acquire resources, settle disputes and preserve states. Violence is the ultimate authority in the human world. All authority is derived from violence or the threat thereof.

The myths and storytelling that come after the fact to justify acts of violence, theft and brutality are just extensions of processes that revolve around material and social concerns. It is about resource and power acquisition. War pays off well for the victors and social advancement likewise often follows for the victorious survivors. A given society can obtain an energy subsidy as a result of acquiring unearned resources from rival communities. It is from such processes as this that myths and stories arise to make sense of what is really a very brutal and bestial component of human nature.

"gregkavarnos"Your use of the is completely out of context. The teaching is not one about "just" war, but about (as the chapter title says):Conditions of a Nation's Welfare

no its not completely out of context,you sir just skipped the entire first of the chapter,the context is that King of Magadha desires to go to war with Vijjians who are buddhists and are protectors of the Arahants/Dharma,and the king is sending someone to ask the Buddha what he thinks about the coming battle.and again as the context will show the Buddha says these Vijjians will not be defeated in battle.

*now again how are the Buddhist Vijjian soldiers who protect the Arahants going to win a battle if they are not permitted to fight?how can the Buddha predict victory for the Buddhist Vijjian soldiers if as Buddhists they are not supposed to fight?you are making the claims that the dharma says Buddhists soldiers are not supposed to fight,if this was true then the Buddha would of told the King of magadha that the Buddhist Vijjian soldiers who uphold the Dharma and are the "protectors" of the Arahants would easily be beaten in battle cause they would not fight back.instead he lets him know that these PROTECTORS of the arahants will not be defated in battle.this is the actual context

Part One: In Magadha

1. Thus have I heard. Once the Blessed One [1] dwelt at Rajagaha, on the hill called Vultures' Peak. At that time the king of Magadha, Ajatasattu, son of the Videhi queen, [2] desired to wage war against the Vajjis. He spoke in this fashion: "These Vajjis, powerful and glorious as they are, I shall annihilate them, I shall make them perish, I shall utterly destroy them."2. And Ajatasattu, the king of Magadha, addressed his chief minister, the brahman Vassakara, saying: "Come, brahman, go to the Blessed One, pay homage in my name at his feet, wish him good health, strength, ease, vigour, and comfort, and speak thus: 'O Lord, Ajatasattu, the king of Magadha, desires to wage war against the Vajjis. He has spoken in this fashion: "These Vajjis, powerful and glorious as they are, I shall annihilate them, I shall make them perish, I shall utterly destroy them."' And whatever the Blessed One should answer you, keep it well in mind and inform me; for Tathagatas [3] do not speak falsely."3. "Very well, sire," said the brahman Vassakara in assent to Ajatasattu, king of Magadha. And he ordered a large number of magnificent carriages to be made ready, mounted one himself, and accompanied by the rest, drove out to Rajagaha towards Vultures' Peak. He went by carriage as far as the carriage could go, then dismounting, he approached the Blessed One on foot. After exchanging courteous greetings with the Blessed One, together with many pleasant words, he sat down at one side and addressed the Blessed One thus: "Venerable Gotama, Ajatasattu, the king of Magadha, pays homage at the feet of the Venerable Gotama and wishes him good health, strength, ease, vigour, and comfort. He desires to wage war against the Vajjis, and he has spoken in this fashion: 'These Vajjis, powerful and glorious as they are, I shall annihilate them, I shall make them perish, I shall utterly destroy them.'"

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so, and those who have already come might live there in peace?""I have heard, Lord, that they do."Thereupon the brahman Vassakara spoke thus to the Blessed One: "If the Vajjis, Venerable Gotama, were endowed with only one or another of these conditions leading to welfare, their growth would have to be expected, not their decline. What then of all the seven? No harm, indeed, can be done to the Vajjis in battle by Magadha's king, Ajatasattu, except through treachery or discord. Well, then, Venerable Gotama, we will take our leave, for we have much to perform, much work to do."

"Son of Buddha"hence why the mercenary translation of Bhikkhi Bodhi makes more sense...

gregkavarnos"For you it does, so that you can justify the glorification of killing.

No it makes sense cause if the Buddhist soldiers who PROTECT and GAURD the Arahants were not supposed to fight,then the Buddha would of told the invading king that they would win the battle cause buddhists soldier dont exist and wont fight back,instead he tells him the Buddhist soldiers will win the battle.also HOW can the Vijjian soldiers not only win the battle but HOW can they protect and gaurd the Arahants if they are not permitted to fight?(is your idea of protecting and gaurding someone to just sit there and watch them be killed and do nothing about it?your idea of "protecting" doesnt fit the actual context of this sutta whatsoever.

"Son of Buddha"well no the Buddha makes it clear in the 18th vow of the Infinite life sutra that if you have faith in him for even ten moments of thought you will be reborn into the Pureland.

"gregkavarnos" Yes, well... let's not forget bohicitta. And does the 18th vow specify if you will be reborn in his presence directly or not?

Yes the sutra specifies it,also a person shouldnt be vain in thinking of himself to have a higher position in the Pureland,going to the Pureland is all that matters(your "position" is trivial once you get there)

"gregkavarnos"Mahayana Mahaparinirvana sutra I've been meaning to tell you this for some time now, and maybe now is the correct moment: it is no use quoting the Mahaparinirvana Sutra at me because I consider it a bad rewrite of the Mahaparinibbana Sutta by a variety of essentialists and other misfits trying to justify their completely mistaken beliefs by ascribing them to the Buddha. I do not consider it Buddhavacana because it clearly contradicts the vast majority of the corpus of Sutta, Sutra, Tantra and Shastra.

oh well thats your very tiny minority view as for the rest of us Mahayanists the Nirvana sutra is considered definite teachings and is usually listed in the top 3 main sutras of most Mahayana Schools.also I dont qoute the Nirvana Sutra for you,I qoute it for the hundred of other Mahayanists who will read this page P.S you are incorrect most tantras are actually of the Tathagatagarbha True Self Class which is why Ven.Dolpopa qouted heavily from them,if you dislike the Nirvana Sutra then you will HATE most tantras that even go father than the nirvana sutra on topics you seem to dislike.

Vidyaraja wrote:Modern historiography which simplistically reduces all battle to mere financial or material aims also contains an inherent bias because moderns don't see the world in the same way ancient man did, so often these modern views attempt to take past conflicts and rationalize them to fit their materialistic world-view and thereby distort them. Just a casual reading of ancient literature, like the Homeric epics to name one example, shows this view to be false.

To understand war it is perhaps wise to read the experts like Carl von Clausewitz. He said, "War is the continuation of Politik by other means."

This is not specifically a materialistic world-view, but rather based on his own observations and experience.

War is effectively an extension of political processes. It is a tool used to force change, acquire resources, settle disputes and preserve states. Violence is the ultimate authority in the human world. All authority is derived from violence or the threat thereof.

The myths and storytelling that come after the fact to justify acts of violence, theft and brutality are just extensions of processes that revolve around material and social concerns. It is about resource and power acquisition. War pays off well for the victors and social advancement likewise often follows for the victorious survivors. A given society can obtain an energy subsidy as a result of acquiring unearned resources from rival communities. It is from such processes as this that myths and stories arise to make sense of what is really a very brutal and bestial component of human nature.

The various ways that humans justify the unjustifiable sometimes seem endless!

May the eyes of living beings be gladdened by skies made splendid by clouds that lightnings garland, while on earth below, the peacocks dance with joy as showers of rain, falling gently, approach.

Son of Buddha wrote:Yes...Soldiers are not taught to kill they are taught to survive.(I cant expect you to understand)

Of course he is not going to understand this statement, mainly because it is BS. I have served as a conscript (in Greece all able bodied males over the age of 18 have to serve a minimum of six months) in the infantry. You learn to kill using an assault rifle, light machine gun, hand grenades, grenade launcher, mortar, small range guided rockets, etc... in order to survive.

you got to play soldier for 6 months good for you(I cant expect you to understand either)

" Son of Buddhaas i said up above the function of the occupation is to defend the innocent(but again i cant expect you to understand)

"gregkavarnos"Again he will be hard pressed to understand because (again) what you are saying is BS. Let's see now. According to a Congressional Research Service report based on UN figures (the UN only started counting civilian deaths in Afghanistan from 2007) a total of 13,000 Afghan civilians have been killed from 2007 until June 2012. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41084.pdf Now these are only officially reported deaths, and these figures will not take into account civilians killed in the Afghan refugee cities in Pakistan. So much for defending the innocent.

okay so 13,000 civilians have been killed from 2007 to june 2012.so thats 13,000 civilians killed in 5 yearsokay in america 11,000 americans are murdered every YEAR.in fact you have just proved that it takes civilains in Afghanistan 5 years just to reach our death toll we have for one year of living in our country.also can you please state the FACTS..how many of those 13,000 afghan civilian deaths were commited by American soldiers and how many of those civilian deaths were commited by the Taliban???"so much for defending the innocent"....Yea your argument just fell apart seeing as 85% to 95% of civilain deaths were commited by None american forces

"Son of Buddha"P.S soldiers dont fight for the goverment they fight for ... ... .... .. ....(go ask a veteran to fill in the blanks for you)

"gregkavarnos"Let me fill it in for you: business interests (government and private). Mainly mineral and opium interests. Corporatism at its finest.

AHAHAHHAHA yea its OBVIOUS we went to war for booty and plunder and to steal their riches thats why we are 14 trillion dollars in debt......yea thats like saying im a robber and Im going to steal all your money then the robber gives you all his money and walks away broke...yea he "obviously" was a robber and he "obviously" was pludering your riches thats why he gives you money and is broke and in debt.now when you can show that America has become rich after the war and has GAINED 14 trillion dollars due to "plunder" then you might have some evidence.